Sciencemadness Discussion Board

NPED detonator

 Pages:  1  

golfpro - 27-6-2013 at 18:51

I am going to make and use these 100% of the time, if I can get some reassurance they will work at least 65% of the time. I am not that serious about this little hobby, and I think it would be kind of nice knowing I can fiddle around with blasting caps and whatnot knowing there are zero primaries anywhere. I know ETN is sensitive and almost a primary, but better than acetone peroxide.

I saw the detonator on a video somewhere. Approx. .7 grams of etn into a thin metal tube and pressed, then .5mm of compressed al foil disc pressed on top, then a bit of al flakes and etn flakes half and half, about 3mm, then another .5mm compressed al foil disc, softly presed on, on top goes pressed KNO3/Su or the hotter burning stuff in model rocket motors, but it has to be drilled out and kind of arduous to do that

If this could work more than half the time, I'd do it. I know I could use HMTD, and AP in a straw or something both of which I've made small amounts before, but I have read bad things about those, I wouldn't want it to pop as I put it into the main charge.

If I could I'd test it, but I can't.

What is the chance of a straw filled with .2 grams pressed HMTD, sealed and fused, detonating unexpectedly while handling very carefully for no apparent reason?

golfpro - 29-6-2013 at 19:13

What is a hot burning fuel to use in a KNO3 mixture? I know silicon is, but I don't have access to that, I didn't think KNO3/sugar burned very hot.

Vikascoder - 30-6-2013 at 10:47

Sprinkle some magnesium powder also it burns really hot or you can even use little bit of thermite mix . Now surely you will get a very high temperature more than enough

Dornier 335A - 30-6-2013 at 11:36

Coarse magnalium is a good fuel in a KNO3 mixture. It will burn slowly but with a very hot flame.

golfpro - 5-7-2013 at 12:39

I had a scary situation that I wasn't anticipating yesterday. So I was 6/6 on NPED detonations, well last night I was going to do something that has worked in the past. 2 grams pressed into a little pellet in a short cardboard tube, and on top goes a thin peice of etn inside of Al foil tubing, which is under some KNO3/Sugar seperated by 1mm compressed al foil. Something I did different this time, don't ask why, I packed the KNO3/Su. I have seen a delay after the fuel burns out before it detonates from the heat, so I watched the fuel burn out waiting for an explosion, nothing happened I didn't know if the small amount of ETN deflagrated or not though, so I now have 2 grams of hot ETN that had to be close to a heatshock det. I have to deal with. I waited 30 mins for it to cool before I went near it, then poured room temp water all over to soak it, then removed the detonator from the wet 2 grams of ETN.

I have been contemplating what is more dangerous, an undetonated heatshock ETN detonator or HMTD in general? The reason this is so scary is because I have seen these explode 5 seconds or so after all of the heating fuel is burned out.

golfpro - 9-7-2013 at 15:41

I want to bring this thread back because I think NPED is much better for everyone than peroxide. My main goal is to somehow acquire sodium azide it probably will have to be made, and then metathesis into Lead Azide.

But I think if an NPED detonator works 6/7 times, the one time it doesn't detonate isn't just bad luck, I did something different with that one which I already know what.

When people say they are not reliable does that mean they will work 19 times out of 20? or they will only work 1 out of 3 times? I know they are bulky and not very realistic but who cares? Look at this vid, this looks like an NPED was used, and this person does everything so proffesionally: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6V-4AnJpoSM

However Nickel Hydrazine Nitrate NHN looks like a nice option too. Is it very commonly used/made?? If not why not?

[Edited on 10-7-2013 by golfpro]

chemcam - 9-7-2013 at 16:25

It means you cannot count on it working properly. Too many variables to take into account. I never liked the idea of a charge failing and having to go fetch it. But I don't use peroxides either. To different people unreliable could mean different things. To me it says fails more than half the time, seven trials is not enough to get an idea and even then you said you did different things so it doesn't count.

You have to be absolutely sure you do the same thing every time and then you will see it still fails.

golfpro - 9-7-2013 at 16:34

Quote: Originally posted by chemcam  
You have to be absolutely sure you do the same thing every time and then you will see it still fails.


That is enough to not want to use them, but I'd still do it if I could get a detonation 5 out of 7 times, but the charge must sit for a good amount of time before it is retrieved to let the ETN cool etc. and that is where the danger comes in to play.

I still think they are still decent for messin around with ETN in the range of .5g-5g, if it doesn't work, don't go near it for a little bit, the first minute is critical, after it cools for 45mins, it's the equivelant of walking up to any room temp ETN. I even make something the equivelant of a legal firecracker salute, only a bit louder and cooler sounding, it's about .3g of ETN.

Cam, what are your thoughts on NHN as primary??? Have you made it?? The challenge with that is the hydrazine, but then hydrazine is needed for sodium azide of course.

chemcam - 9-7-2013 at 16:48

Yeah but if it doesn't detonate you should watch it the whole time so no unsuspecting people get...damaged..

By NHN you must mean nickel hydrazine nitrate? I have no experience with it but if I had more hydrazine I would probably go the azide route. Actually, I like to experiment with all types of new energetics I probably would try to make it once but for practicality I still think lead azide possibly sensitized with lead styphnate depending on application.

I still question whether it goes high order or not.

golfpro - 9-7-2013 at 17:34

Whether or not the heatshocked material goes high order? I don't know, It'd be cool to find out. Nickel Hydrazine Nitrate yes. I read it has very low friction and shock sensitivity but still good enough heat sensitivity (flame). Not to mention, you only need Nickel Nitrate and Hydrazine or H-Sulfate for the reaction. So much easier than any Azide. It's an "exotic" though for some reason which immediately tells me it is not so much effective.

I'm not going to make caps with two different primaries and the base charge, like LA and SA-DS primer as some do, I don't have the time and devotion for that. I'd be interested in 600mg base charge, ETN or RDX and then 100-300mg of decent heat sensitive primary, like LA or NHN.


Laboratory of Liptakov - 13-9-2014 at 19:51

Detonator type NPED based ETN obviously exists. It was developed in the Laboratory of Liptakov patented and patent-pending 12.March 2014 is still ongoing. Therefore it can not disclose the details. What I can disclose is this: It's hollow tube without baffles and without caps. It is filled with exactly that way mixtures ETN, NC3, AP. The detonator contains no additional chemicals. Only electric initiation point. I can not write more, I'm sorry.
LL

macckone - 14-9-2014 at 10:01

sodium azide is readily available in air bags.
junk yards in the US love to get rid of them.
They are basically detonators already.

roXefeller - 14-9-2014 at 10:53

Quote: Originally posted by Laboratory of Liptakov  
Detonator type NPED based ETN obviously exists. It was developed in the Laboratory of Liptakov patented and patent-pending 12.March 2014 is still ongoing. Therefore it can not disclose the details. What I can disclose is this: It's hollow tube without baffles and without caps. It is filled with exactly that way mixtures ETN, NC3, AP. The detonator contains no additional chemicals. Only electric initiation point. I can not write more, I'm sorry.
LL


Actually you can disclose details of patents in application. Since you've already filed for the patent you've established a verifiable date showing you were the original inventor. We, the would-be intellectual property theives, would be expected to show evidence of 'our' idea prior to the date you filed the patent in order to claim it was 'our' idea. This is why so many products are advertised as patent-pending.

ETN -NPED

Laboratory of Liptakov - 14-9-2014 at 11:37

I understand. NPED works. But: the system still has a high percentage of failure. This is the problem of (almost all) NPED systems. Ongoing completion research. This is a normal procedure. Everyone knows that thermonuclear fusion works. However, there is not a electrical power station for normal people. Another thing: Sciencemadness is monitored by government agencies around the world. Laboratory of Liptakov will showcase all the results of years of research. Strong detonator and priming charge is the key to the initiation of tertiary explosives. LL will not support easy (very easy) to construct IED.
LL



[Edited on 15-9-2014 by Laboratory of Liptakov]

[Edited on 15-9-2014 by Laboratory of Liptakov]

NPED

Laboratory of Liptakov - 2-10-2014 at 23:19

This is the reliable detonator type NPED. But there is a fundamental problem. It has a large delay. A structure is complicated.

nped_nobel.jpg - 213kB

[Edited on 3-10-2014 by Laboratory of Liptakov]

Bert - 3-10-2014 at 00:38

Have you got measurements of the firing delay due to the red thermite heat mixture in the firing train? If you are able to regulate it as desired, and these are manufactured in a uniform manner- it's not a problem. It's a feature!

jock88 - 3-10-2014 at 01:28


Are exploding bridge wire detonators usable for this type of thing.
There are threads on them here.




https://www.scribd.com/doc/13655464/Non-Primary-Explosive-De...



[Edited on 3-10-2014 by jock88]

NPED

Laboratory of Liptakov - 3-10-2014 at 03:35

Bert, the patent is not a word about the delay. That is strange. If the delay is very small (do not know) there is a good guide to safe and reliable detonator. Not so simple.
Jock 88: I recommend you read in detail the entire patent. Others also, than come to reflect and respond.
LL

Turner - 4-10-2014 at 20:08

I knew someone would eventually come along who wished to invest time in attempting to improve NPED. NPED is/was close to being good, I'd stick with a traditional cap w/ primary explosive for reliability.

I have seen models of NPED's before, although never as complex as this one, this looks like a refined/tuned-up version of basic NPED diagrams I have seen before.

[Edited on 5-10-2014 by Turner]

roXefeller - 5-10-2014 at 11:23

Turner, Yeah NPED's work, which is why it only needs refined for reliability.

LL, what was your thinking for the reinforced PETN portion?

NPED

Laboratory of Liptakov - 5-10-2014 at 13:16

The steel small cup has a wall thickness of 0.6 mm. The important thing in patent .: PETN and RDX containing catalysts. These enable (speed up) transient DDT.
LL

roXefeller - 5-10-2014 at 14:21

I noticed the wax but I assumed it was binder. By catalyst are you really implying a sensitizer? What did you use?

NeonPulse - 5-10-2014 at 16:55

Wouldn't MHN be a good candidate for this type of system?It has been said that It is on the verge of being a primary explosive itself and is pretty powerful to boot. Perhaps in combined with a PETN base it could work well.

NPED

Laboratory of Liptakov - 6-10-2014 at 09:25

Try MHN and PETN. Write if it works. (like NPED) It will be a great benefit to the S-madness. Engineers at the Nobel Lab. are not fools. Read the patent...No: 5385098-1. Everybody......Compulsory. Who will learn everything (from patent), will know the composition of the catalysts. A not invent nonsense. A detonator can construct NPED. Reliable.
LL

Ral123 - 7-10-2014 at 07:20

I'm sure MHN is near best for NPED, but I don't trust it's stability as much as LA. BTW sorry for not being active, I'm working toward a carrier beginning now.

NPED

Laboratory of Liptakov - 7-10-2014 at 14:14

I use a translator. Maybe I do not understand the answers from Ral123. If it is easy to add monohydrazinenitrate? Let's do it. In the patent, the catalyst / modifier: beta resorcin lead and lead salicylate. 2 + 2%. And black lamp 0.2%. Based on the content of nitrocellulose. NC12,6N is a binder for the agglomerates from 0.1 to 0.5 millimeters. NC content is 5%. MHN is stable? At least to 80C for several hours? If so, try it. Or try to use only black lamp. About 0.4% from NC. Here are suggestions on how to simplify the design. Fig. 1,2,3,4. LL

Laboratory NPED.jpg - 187kB

roXefeller - 7-10-2014 at 16:06

Or was it mannitol hexanitrate?

NeonPulse - 7-10-2014 at 16:29

Mannitol Hexanitrate. And Ral123 is right. Stability of this compound is not too great, perhaps slightly better with a betaine stabilizer. You would have to make them and use them to order. As a stability test for my references I made two sets of MHN dets. Two of them kept in an old hot car in the yard for a 3 weeks, and two were made for immediate use. The cars temp during the day would have been 30-40℃ and upon testing them the warm stored ones showed a definite loss of power over the fresh units.

Ral123 - 8-10-2014 at 00:07

If the MHN has decomposed to the point it has lost power, that's telling how dangerous it is, I thought it was more stable. How was it purified?

NPED

Laboratory of Liptakov - 8-10-2014 at 08:15

Who of us amateurs will leave detonators in a hot car three weeks? It will not do even with original detonators. As a stability test = excellent. Mannitol hexanitrate can try. But it is necessary to perform many tests. Other pressing pressures. I advocate keeping with PETN. Should the test PETN. Together with catalysts. Lamp black or ammonium perchlorate. Or other available accelerators.
LL

NPED

Laboratory of Liptakov - 9-10-2014 at 12:43

The picture is what to do with PETN. The catalyst need not be present there. System NPED works without catalysts. The cavity 8 mm system should work. The catalysts are added for reliable function at - 30C. Do not use acetone. Use EtOAc-. Densities what are the figures must be tested. Number of press operations as well. I recommend to start Fig.4.
LL

aglomery.jpg - 89kB

NPED

Laboratory of Liptakov - 17-11-2014 at 07:01

Another way to make a strong NPED detonator is this. Who has PETN, may try to make. It should work. LL

NPED petn.jpg - 67kB

specialactivitieSK - 21-11-2014 at 06:15

Nitro Nobel experimented with zener diodes ( reverse polarity ). Ignition of smokeless powder.

For example, different diodes :

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ywdtKZb_JIQ

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CUTUa8Ngt-M

[Edited on 21-11-2014 by specialactivitieSK]

kick

Laboratory of Liptakov - 21-11-2014 at 09:49

If the electronic component (capacitor, diode, transistor, etc.) managed to kick the PETN detonation velocity, it would be interesting. As I know, the only thing that works is exploding wire. That's no way for amateur research. LL

Bert - 21-11-2014 at 10:55

Managing to assemble a big enough capacitor bank, no problem.

High voltage power supply, a little challenge, a bit of danger.

Making a fast enough switching circuit that won't self destruct and configuring the whole firing system including the OUTPUT LINE so that current rise across the exploding element is steep enough... Big challenge for a non engineer. And since you will likely be losing at least part of your output line on many uses?

BERTA system

Laboratory of Liptakov - 5-2-2015 at 06:55



Pyro amateurs around the world still use HMTD, TATP and other dangerous substances. Here I present, makes available invention Ecological shock tubes on the based TeACP. Stability DDT is limited to 90 days at ambient temperature 15C. Confirmed.
Ecological initiator is safe for production. Made over 1000 without incident, without exploding. This is the main reason for the publication. The development lasted more than two years. The device is called Berta system. This is the Czech acronym commercial designation. English is: lead-free ecological impact tube on the tetraammin based. Here you have the opportunity to study ecological initiator system Berta. The design is very simple and easy. But for the production of the required precision press and precision stamping tools. Experienced researchers and professionals are able to construct a system Berta. This requires knowledge of mechanics. Accurate and detailed description of tools and products for production will not be published. Technological process will not be published. This is to protect against hot heads. For filling the shock tube, it is necessary to produce a specific grain size and composition. And follows: 1) TeACP fraction is basic to 0,05 to 0,2 mm, wet 1-3%. 2) In 5g NH3 25% aq, dissolved 1.4 g NH4ClO4. 3) This was mixed with 8.4 g TeACP fraction. Arises dough. 4) The dough is dried to form wet lumps having a water content of about 10-20%. 6) Wet lumps through a sieve 2x2m. This produces granules. 8) The granules are dried to a moisture content of 1-5% H2O/NH3 free. 9) Use 1x1m sieve is collected, separated fine particles smaller than 1x1m. We therefore granule 1x1 to 2x2m. Like for gunpowder. These grains are then compressed according to the diagram. First, 3700 kg / cm2. The area is 0.502 cm2. This means the pressing pressure 1850 kg /cm2. Tolerance pressure is 10%. Weight is 0.5 grams for a segment. A total of 3 g + - 10% as well. Then 1000 kg and so on, by diagram. Both ends are provided with PIB. Protection against loss of H20 and NH3 from molecule TeACP. In this way stability is achieved for 90 days. For reliable transition DDT. Rezistor is clasic metalic 1R5/0,6W. BasicVoltage is 6V/1A, delay 1s. Or 12V/ xA from acumulator, delay about 0,05s (instant). Berta no contains bulkheads and other excipients.Only 86 TeACP, 14 NH4ClO4 + H2O/ NH3 free. This is key for reliability DDT. Confirmed. Production TeACP is very easy. No carcinogenic metals. Ni, Co, Pb, Hg and others.For production, it should only NH4ClO4, Cu wire and ammonia water 24-25% technical quality. Detonation pressure detonator Berta is 25 GPa. RDX has 28 GPa. Deminers around the world looking for a safe initiator without primary substances, without the heavy metals. Here it is. This is a ecological Berta high explosive system. Use as a pellet Tetryl, for example 4,5g 15x15mm pellets. ingredients: TeACP fine dust 93% + 3% H2O / NH3 free, 2% PIB and 2% oil 5W40. Pressing to a density of 1.75 -1.85 g / cm3. VoD 7000-7500 m /s. Like is Berta detonator output segment.
This system is able to launch any secondary explosive. Albert Einstein once said. Things should be done as simply as possible. But not simpler. This system is Berta. Simply. For research purposes and tests. Cu tube is 50x8/10mm.
...:cool:...LL

Berta system.jpg - 127kB

tetraamine copper perchlorate

Rosco Bodine - 17-2-2015 at 13:31

@LL I thought I had posted this before long ago.

You may find this information on TACP interesting

http://parazite.nn.fi/roguesci/index.php/t-158-p-7.html

file attached for posterity



Attachment: TACC, TACN, and tetramine copper perchlorate [Archive] - Page 7 - The Explos.pdf (37kB)
This file has been downloaded 3188 times


Berta system

Laboratory of Liptakov - 18-2-2015 at 01:58

Yes, I read these articles before about 1 year. It's a good article, description TACP. Berta system is the next step. A comprehensive system that works reliably. For Berta initiator is important to 1-5% moisture prior to pressing. Production of shock tubes Berta here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JFxbdp-I0hw
Easy prepare TACP here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CEdMVq1uM4I
...LL...:cool:

Rosco Bodine - 18-2-2015 at 08:48

TACP has a positive oxygen balance which enables use of a fuel or use of an energetic fuel in mixture with TACP to achieve oxygen balance. The oxygen balanced mixture is also more sensitive to initiation. I tried this using paraffin as 2.75 parts plus 97.25 parts TACP for a good mixture.

I did not test a mixture 85:15 of TACP with NH4ClO4 which would have even greater positive oxygen balance. I do not know why you would use 15%
of NH4ClO4 or what is the advantage for such a mixture compared with 100% TACP.

Why do you use 15% NH4ClO4?

Berta system

Laboratory of Liptakov - 18-2-2015 at 10:49

Who would have thought that an emulsion containing 12% water and ammonium nitrate will be the explosive?
Or Guglielmo Marconi. Antenna across the ocean does not work upwards? Put it in reverse. Was performed (Berta) over 1000 trials. Every little differently. The oxygen balance in Berta is + 17.42. I know it sounds like nonsense. Similarly, as the above examples. Without AP Berta also works. Very poorly, or not at all. Unfortunately, I can not explain it. Containing 12-15% of the AP is working at 100%...:cool:...LL
There are things between heaven and earth.

[Edited on 18-2-2015 by Laboratory of Liptakov]

Rosco Bodine - 18-2-2015 at 11:50

Perhaps the detonation of AP is catalyzed by the Cu ion from the TACP.
Have you tried paraffin as a sensitizer and graining additive for the 85:15 mixture?

You describe a good 90 day storage for the 85:15 mixture. There appeared to be no storage issue for the sample of unmixed TACP which I tested. The sample was kept for a couple of years and it showed no apparent change.

Laboratory of Liptakov - 18-2-2015 at 14:38

The addition of paraffin to 85:15 Not tested, no paraffin. Dry TACP (about 0,3% H2O) loses the ability to DDT. After 3 days. And it certainly. In the tube not work a like detonator. Loss of DDT. Confirmed at least 100x. 3-5 days old dry TACP@1,85 with primer LA 200mg, full detonation, speed of 7500 m/s. 10 -20 days old dry TACP@1,85 init. LA, only deflagration. Total loss of DDT, in Cu tube 8/10 of course. It is my experience...:cool:...LL

Rosco Bodine - 18-2-2015 at 17:04

For 1.5 grams TACP with no paraffin a 1/4" column diameter loaded at 8,000 psi, 300mg LA produced complete detonation.

For 1.5 grams TACP with paraffin 2.75% a 1/4" column diameter loaded at 8,000 psi, 200mg LA was reduced amount produced complete detonation.

The same test condition for TACP from the same batch with paraffin increased to 6.75% produced only partial detonation.

All tests unreenforced caps fired by fuse not crimped

There were not repeated tests done on material after long storage. But there was no apparent change in the stored samples, no odor of ammonia on opening containers, no color change. The material dried at 95C appeared storage stable to me. I also left a sample out openly exposed to air for extended time and it appeared stable also.

Laboratory of Liptakov - 12-3-2015 at 09:10

Berta also works in other specific forms. For example TACP + HMTA 100: 7. Even in the cavity 6 mm. Or with clean TACP. But the stability of the transition DDT is not verified. (3 mon.) It's still research...:cool:...LL

Thermal Shock Initiation Using Molten Metal

Hennig Brand - 7-4-2015 at 13:54

Was doing some soldering today and out of curiosity I dropped little blobs of molten 60-40 solder on very small quantities of ETN sitting on a piece of scrap wood which caused the ETN to flash and snap loudly. I think this effect could be harnessed and used for a NPED design.

Lead and some of its alloys have very good thermal conductivity, significant ability to store energy as latent and sensible heats especially if considered in terms of volume, flow well when molten and have a melting point above that which is needed to thermally shock ETN, MHN, NG and others.

Haven't quite got all the specifics worked out, but I think this could work well. I does rely on gravity, however, since molten metal falls towards the center of the earth which will govern the orientation of at least that part of the cap. Even 60-40, tin-lead, solder has a melting point over 180C and with a little ingenuity it can be heated well above its melting point before being dumped on the secondary explosive below thermally shocking it into detonation. My initial thought was that the heating element (electrical resistive element) could be positioned high in the lead alloy and the bottom could have a layer of higher melting alloy to ensure that the main bulk of the lower melting alloy above was well above its solidification point before the bottom layer melted dumping the molten heat sink. The molten lead would provide confinement as well, during the initial moments of contact, which would increase the effect. Obviously the heating element will have to be electrically insulated from the conductive lead alloy (something which I am still thinking about). I suppose a hot burning pyrotechnic mixture placed over the solid lead such as a thermite type mixture could be used in place of the electrical heat element (not sure if this is practical).

Here are some thermal properties of 60-40 solder taken from the following website:

http://www.matweb.com/search/datasheet.aspx?matguid=06a31d97...

Heat of Fusion: 37.0 J/g
Specific Heat Capacity: 0.173 J/g.C
Thermal Conductivity: 49.8 W/m.K
Melting Point: 183-190C
Solidus: 183C
Liquidus: 190C

Also the viscosity is given as 2cP at 190C, which is only double that of room temperature water, and so will flow through holes and into tight crevices making excellent contact with the explosive to be initiated very quickly.

Attachment: Alloy Temperature Chart (Kester).pdf (74kB)
This file has been downloaded 1107 times

Cap Without Primary.jpg - 16kB

The thermal conductivities of the common lead free solders are even higher at about 60 W/m.K, as well as having higher melting temperatures and greater heat capacities owing to the much higher tin content and no lead.

edit:
I suppose a bit of glass or maybe ceramic tubing, or some other electrical insulator, could be used to hold the alloy to be melted and it could be heated through the tubing sidewall by nichrome wire or other resistive element wrapped around the tubing. Still thinking.


[Edited on 7-4-2015 by Hennig Brand]

Laboratory of Liptakov - 8-4-2015 at 08:48

This is very interesting. Dripping lead (solder) on ETN. But the condition of gravity, it is a big limitation. I see a similarity. ETN heated and molten on the aluminum thin plate (foil) exploded. Reliably. But the practical use (as detonator) is very difficult...LL

PHILOU Zrealone - 8-4-2015 at 11:23

Other ideas:
Fe powder + S (flower) --> FeS (like a cigarette burning)
Al2+ 3S --> Al2S3 (with exces Al for ETN ignition)
FeO or Fe2O3 thermite
PbO or PbO2 thermite
Cu2O or CuO thermite

Hennig Brand - 8-4-2015 at 16:12

Quote: Originally posted by Laboratory of Liptakov  
This is very interesting. Dripping lead (solder) on ETN. But the condition of gravity, it is a big limitation. I see a similarity. ETN heated and molten on the aluminum thin plate (foil) exploded. Reliably. But the practical use (as detonator) is very difficult...LL


I think the molten metal, at a temperature above the decomposition temperature of the explosive, could easily provide a great deal more near instantaneous thermal shock, which I think would result in more reliability. I haven't tested it, but it seems logical. I am thinking of the experiments where NG is dropped on hot steel and made to detonate.

Thermite

MineMan - 8-4-2015 at 19:39

I agree with the others, you could use an electric current in a high resistant wire to heat up lead and drip it onto ETN, or you could make molten iron from thermite instantly. I would be curious if anyone had had any success on this?

Hennig Brand - 9-4-2015 at 04:31

There may be a certain temperature, or range of temperatures, that works best to initiate the ETN or MHN, etc (like NG being dripped on hot steel where the right temperature causes immediate detonation). By choosing the correct alloy with the correct melting point it should be possible to set the temperature reasonably accurately. Thermal shock to me indicates very rapid transfer of energy to increase the temperature of the explosive extremely quickly to above its decomposition point and I think dropping a highly conductive molten metal of low viscosity on the sample does it well. I suppose a thermite type reaction could work as well, but I don't think lighting a combustible mixture in contact with the explosive will provide nearly the same thermal shock (steep power curve) or be as controllable with regards to temperature or rate of heat transfer. Maybe it won't work at all, but it seems promising to me except for the gravity issue.

MineMan - 9-4-2015 at 10:44

Hennig,

I see where you are coming from. I look forward to your experiments, I see you are working on an EBW right now too from other post. It will be interesting to see which set up you prefer. Good work, Good ideas.

Laboratory of Liptakov - 9-4-2015 at 12:15

I recommend use this: Page 3 this thread. posted on 17-11-2014 at 07:01
With PENT or MHN. It is easy prepare. Who it try, will be king of detonators of all science madness. So much PETN is spended on main charge, Why no for detonator? ( I have not PETN...:cool:...LL)

MineMan - 9-4-2015 at 16:05

LL,

I am not sure I understand what you are saying?

Hennig Brand - 9-4-2015 at 16:10

He is referring to a post of his made on that date and time in this thread. Last page of this thread, electrically heated resistor in center of low density PETN with higher density PETN on either end for enhanced effect. Also iron oxide and Al added to increase initiation sensitivity.

http://www.sciencemadness.org/talk/viewthread.php?tid=24817&...

That is interesting and should provide an enhanced effect. LL, why don't you make some PETN? It is one of the easiest to make explosives from what I have seen. I seem to remember you mentioning only being permitted to use certain materials, is that correct?


[Edited on 10-4-2015 by Hennig Brand]

PHILOU Zrealone - 10-4-2015 at 06:50

Quote: Originally posted by PHILOU Zrealone  
Other ideas:
Fe powder + S (flower) --> FeS (like a cigarette burning)
Al2+ 3S --> Al2S3 (with exces Al for ETN ignition)
FeO or Fe2O3 thermite
PbO or PbO2 thermite
Cu2O or CuO thermite


3 FeO + 2Al -->Al2O3 + 3 Fe (l)
Fe2O3 + 2 Al --> Al2O3 + 2 Fe (l)

3 PbO + 2Al --> Al2O3 + 3 Pb (l or g)
3 PbO2 + 4 Al --> 2 Al2O3 + 3 Pb (l or g)

3 Cu2O + 2Al --> Al2O3 + 6 Cu (l or g)
3 CuO + 2Al --> Al2O3 + 3 Cu (l or g)

So metal in the molten or overheated gaseous state (plasma?) should set ETN off.
The second set of equations with lead is very close to the soldering alloy in properties...so it remains on track of Hennig Brand's idea spirit ;)

I'm the lucky owner of a few 100g of a very special ultrafine Al powder that can be set in fire by the flame (even the spark of a lighter). It is very light and has a dendritic structure and comes from a russian technology (got it from a french friend in relation with russian propellant and detonic specialists). It is made via a process where Aluminium wire is explosed by electric discharge in a closed reactor containing inert Argon atmosphere; once the system has cooled down, the Al dust is cooled even more and dry cold air is introduced at a reduced speed in the reactor under agitation. This way the oxyd layer is as minimal as possible (ratio active metal/oxydised metal is high; this tend to get reduced by the lowering of the particle size) and the Al powder is very reactive (high specific surface). With this I have made Fe2O3/Al thermite ignite with a candle flame (what is impossible with all other variety of Al powder I have!); I have had Al/NH4NO3 prills burst into fierce flame while usually such mixes with my other Al powders doesn't burn easy and never sustain without external heating...
This kind of Al powder was studied as being twice as effective in propellant applications (specific impulse) than other varieties and could find applications in thermobaric explo-implosion: ultrafine Al nano-powder pressed became a spongeous material block that is impregnated with molten TNT; the later overfueled Aluminized TNT when subjected to a detonator pulverizes the excess Al fuel with help of the TNT detonation and immediately set on fire....this generates a first explosion wave...then this special form of Al burns all oxygen and nitrogen in the blast radius (easy formation of AlN and Al2O3)...the air is thus vaccuumed and you then observe an implosion effect (air wave in the opposite way of the initial detonation).
2 Al + N2 --> 2 AlN
3 Al + O2 --> Al2O3

[Edited on 10-4-2015 by PHILOU Zrealone]

Hennig Brand - 10-4-2015 at 08:53

Good that you got the lead in there. I think lead is the key to success. ;):D

It is likely normally quite difficult to produce enough heat energy and transfer it to the ETN in the practical volumes available in a blasting cap. Also the small volume has a relatively large surface area in contact with the thermally conductive metal blasting cap casing which wicks away heat very rapidly and it gets worse fast as temperature rises and it is those high temperatures that are needed for initiation.

Rosco Bodine - 10-4-2015 at 08:58

Some dragons eggs / crackling microstars related links may provide useful information about energetic thermite compositions intended to produce explosion

https://books.google.com/books?id=X3aFQdJkmnAC&pg=PA32&a...

http://www.pyrotubes.co.uk/apps/forums/topics/show/7821455

http://www.pyrotubes.co.uk/apps/forums/topics/show/4636223

http://www.skylighter.com/fireworks/how-to-make/bismuth-subc...


crackling microstars.JPG - 36kB


Attachment: DragonEggStudy.pdf (502kB)
This file has been downloaded 1788 times


[Edited on 10-4-2015 by Rosco Bodine]

Bert - 10-4-2015 at 09:25

Make a pellet of Lead alloy, with a thin diaphragm of a slightly higher melting alloy below it,over the holes leading to the PETN/ETN or whatever- And a steel piston & spring above the low temperature melting alloy, arrange heating of Lead alloy by either chemical reaction or electrical resistance, such that most of the lead is fully @ liquidus, then the higher MP diaphragm over the base charge melts, top spring forces piston down & molten metal squirts into base charge quickly and regardless of orientation of device.

Hennig Brand - 10-4-2015 at 09:32

Sounds like it could work, Bert, and it does solve the gravity issue.

Bert - 10-4-2015 at 10:08

Just slowly overheating an ampoule of nitroglycerin would provide a similar effect and be mechanically simpler- Probably not a much slower firing time either. Sensitive to handling though...


Rosco Bodine - 10-4-2015 at 10:36

Intending to produce a thermal shock induced "cook off" detonation, you want the temperature rise at the material contact thermal transfer interface to be Fast and Hot, intensity for both being a helluva lot :D Think "flashbulb" type effect.

PHILOU Zrealone - 11-4-2015 at 04:40

Quote: Originally posted by Rosco Bodine  
Some dragons eggs / crackling microstars related links may provide useful information about energetic thermite compositions intended to produce explosion

https://books.google.com/books?id=X3aFQdJkmnAC&pg=PA32&a...

http://www.pyrotubes.co.uk/apps/forums/topics/show/7821455

http://www.pyrotubes.co.uk/apps/forums/topics/show/4636223

http://www.skylighter.com/fireworks/how-to-make/bismuth-subc...


[Edited on 10-4-2015 by Rosco Bodine]

Lead tetraoxyde? Typo?
Wasn't it PbO2 (lead dioxyde or lead (IV) oxyde)

Bert - 11-4-2015 at 05:10

Quote: Originally posted by Rosco Bodine  
Intending to produce a thermal shock induced "cook off" detonation, you want the temperature rise at the material contact thermal transfer interface to be Fast and Hot, intensity for both being a helluva lot :D Think "flashbulb" type effect.


I have repeatedly seen discussion here and elsewhere of various attempts to use pyrotechnic mixtures to initiate secondary explosives such as ETN, PETN- mixed results and reliability not so good.

It's been quite a while since I played with this- and back then, never tried it inside a cap. As I recall, my attempts with ETN and NG uncontained worked best on slow heating. Fast heating resulted in these substances catching fire and burning off. Sealed inside a cap would be a different story, by other's accounts.

If you want to heat the secondary fast, one of the explosively fast thermite mixtures would indeed be a good choice. If the most rapid heating possible is the object rather than shock, perhaps directing a supersonic jet of molten metal onto the secondary, as may be produced by thermite with an admixture of Teflon?

Rosco Bodine - 11-4-2015 at 07:17

The original patents and references to "safety detonators" describe what is definitely not a new idea using pyrotechnics and DDT schemes for detonators. It is really a dubious quest of a "solution" in search of a problem to solve, since detonators using primary explosives are not inherently "unsafe". There are even a few cases where the sensitivity of a primary explosive may be less than the sensitivity of the secondary explosive it initiates, but the property of the primary which distinguishes it and makes it useful is that it behaves differently by being more inclined to detonate or always detonate rather than requiring a set of special conditions that provide a sequence stepwise path to detonation. The problem encountered with complex firing trains is called "quench" where if all the essential conditions in tandem are not optimal the device firing sequence will malfunction. That can even happen in firing trains where a primary explosive is present but is much more likely to occur in a device which does not have a "prime mover" that is unequivocally a primary explosive.

In the final analysis there is less to go wrong about a detonator that has a conventional firing train that uses a primary explosive, than a more complex configuration that relies upon stepwise progressive density loading schemes and mechanical confinement gradients that are "tuned" to produce a detonation wave. For a commercially manufactured device it may be technically feasible but will be more expensive.

To me the concept of an NPED is in the same category of thing as would be a contemplated "improvement in ammunition" as would incorrectly propose that firearms using ammunition that have primers are somehow "unsafe" because in the way they normally function a firing pin impacts a primary explosive which then ignites the gunpowder. The REALITY is that such a firing scheme is neither inherently "unsafe" nor is it in any way technically deficient. However, many persons may for some personal reasons and agenda which is their own mystery, advocate and propose that for various reasons they suppose are valid that somehow a problem exists on a technical level which is a reason for there to be pursued an invented "solution" for a "problem" that doesn't really exist.

The REALITY is there is not a problem, so there is not needed any "solution".

This scenario I think is revealing something psychological going on with the thought process in the mind of the person who has difficulty with doing rational "risk analysis" that realistically surveys costs versus benefit or risks versus gain kinds of propositions with a sensible pragmatism about what works well as compared with what doesn't .....not measured as absolutes, but as a matter of practicality about performance.

Sometimes, while it may be possible to build a better mouse trap, the task should not be given great effort, if the billions of a particular design already proven to be quite adequate are already doing the job nicely.

If it isn't broke, don't fix it. The "new and improved" often isn't either one.

Hennig Brand - 11-4-2015 at 08:10

Rosco, are you stirring the pot again? :D I am completely sane......I think. :D
I also think that the better primary explosives, such as lead azide, are relatively safe and very cost effective. I also think that EBW systems, for instance, could be safer overall if all dangers are considered such as primary explosive synthesis, blasting cap loading, etc. It is more costly to set up an EBW system, but I think once set up it should be fairly cost effective. I actually see experimenting with NPEDs less like building a better mouse trap than is constantly digging through obscure chemistry trying to find a slightly better primary explosive when we already have lead azide and others. I am not completely opposed to either activity, however, since a lot of useful things can be learned a long the way and you never really know when something of real value will turn up unexpectedly.

NPED resolved

Laboratory of Liptakov - 1-7-2015 at 07:44

NPED system problem is resolved. These are operating systems NPED for ETN and PETN. Everything important is in the schema. Dr. Liptakov

PETN NPED scheme1.jpg - 307kB

ETN NPED scheme3.jpg - 304kB

Hennig Brand - 1-7-2015 at 10:27

Nice presentation! Is this now a very reliable system?

NPED

Laboratory of Liptakov - 1-7-2015 at 10:41

Yes. From 20 attempt no more failed. Always hole diameter 7mm in steel 2mm. Or 5-6mm in 3mm steel. Therefore is scheme here. Confirmed, now is it reliable. No more HMTD, no more azide, double salt and etc.
Have fun with safe detonators wishes Dr. Liptakov :-)

TGT - 1-7-2015 at 22:48

I seen your videos on YouTube and I thought they were great. Actually all the videos are very informative and really show excellent ways of -do it yourself- that I would have never thought of without seeing it done.

One question I have is, how is this mirror system benefit the design as appose to conventional detonators?

TGT

Laboratory of Liptakov - 2-7-2015 at 02:50

The explanation is simple. Energetic material burns and detonates on both sides. Therefore, the transition probability DDT much higher. The condition is very small igniter. Another thing insoluble component, CuO, Al, AP must be a very fine powder. For an ETN-NPED no problem with fine. In the case of PETN has been failure of a NPED. The reason is not many fine powder components. Still, it's just research. If used TeACP 20-25% for system PETN NPED, failure is almost excluded. But it is not clear NPED system. Because it contains dispersed explosive (20% TeACP). But even so it is still better than hexamethylene triperoxide diamine, or not available lead azide. /edite/
Another interesting thing: ETN with 5% NC2 (at 20 Celsius) is medium solid agglomerates for filling. However, at 20C and content of 15% NC2, creates rubber mass. It is difficult to crush agglomerates 2x2m. On the sieve 2x2 mm, arises longer grain 2x3mm. Like short worm. However, important positive thing: ETN + 15 NC2 is not liquid at 100 Celsius. Only soft rubber. Like butter at 20C. At 20C, medium-hard, minimum crushed, but very resilient rubber. It is good for hold ETN on place inside cavity at higher temperature. Liptakov
Liptakov

[Edited on 2-7-2015 by Laboratory of Liptakov]

kecskesajt - 14-7-2015 at 23:27

ETN can be detonated from a burning paper.So 2 gramms of ETN into 2 layers of Al foil and hand pressed to .7 x .7 cm cube.Wrapped in 7 layers of Non-waxed paper and sprinkle some BBQ lighter fluid on top.Light the corner of paper and it detonates in 20 secs.

ETN

Laboratory of Liptakov - 18-7-2015 at 03:04

Interesting. This can be useful. But it's certainly not detonator. Dr. Liptakov :-)

kecskesajt - 18-7-2015 at 03:54

Yes,it isn't but useful when those fkng birds eating fruits from my trees :D
But I made AN nitrate black powder and it could be useful for this because it is cheap,easy to make and burns slowly but hot.Recipe from jared legard.

PHILOU Zrealone - 18-7-2015 at 06:15

Quote: Originally posted by kecskesajt  
ETN can be detonated from a burning paper.So 2 gramms of ETN into 2 layers of Al foil and hand pressed to .7 x .7 cm cube.Wrapped in 7 layers of Non-waxed paper and sprinkle some BBQ lighter fluid on top.Light the corner of paper and it detonates in 20 secs.

I hope you don't distinguish high order detonation, low order detonation and deflagration by the sound of the explosion...nor by the aluminium dust from the multiple layers of Al foil exploded. Sometimes deflagration can be very powerfull and nearly similar in those effects.

Best way to be sure are witness plate or sand crushing tests.
By witness plate I mean iron or steel above 1mm tickness and not the metal of a soda can what can be pierced through by a simple deflagrating cardboard banger or air gun lead bullet.



kecskesajt - 18-7-2015 at 08:34

I don't think deflagaration could make a shockwave :D
And wiki says that deflagarion is just burning.I don't know how to distinguish high and low order explosions.

tests ETN

Laboratory of Liptakov - 18-7-2015 at 09:33

You do not know how to distinguish deflagration from detonation? But PHILOU right here above wrote now it :-)
For 2g ETN 7x7mm is it 3mm steel plate. And clear hole 10x10mm. It is full detonation. If will be only valley, it is not full detonation. Dr. Liptakov

PHILOU Zrealone - 19-7-2015 at 04:03

Quote: Originally posted by kecskesajt  
I don't think deflagaration could make a shockwave :D
And wiki says that deflagarion is just burning.

Are you sure? Ah yes Wiki says...but it forgot to mention that: ;)
-Gas explosion is also fast burning and it can blow windows in large areas without acheiving detonation
-Close yourself in a room and light a Pirat-banger...you will be deaf for a while and your ears will be ringing...proof of a shockwave on your eardrums.
-Fireworks fabric can nearly detonate in the event of a fire accident...even if deflagrating devices.

Laboratory of Liptakov - 19-7-2015 at 09:47

It looks like PHILOU, that we just now hitting a empty grain. Liptakov.

James Ikanov - 28-7-2015 at 14:42

This may or may not be relevant, but I've recently taken up an interest in mixtures of "pyro" grade aluminum and ETN crystals. Has anyone attempted to use such a mixture as a detonator? Without any other additives, I mean.

NPED

Laboratory of Liptakov - 29-7-2015 at 01:23

Of course. Here is easy scheme for construction NPED detonator, only with quality aluminium powder, use as for "silver" color. Conditions is no-oxide surface. And 5% NC2 (12,4N) Liptakov.

ETN NPED scheme4.jpg - 83kB

safety blasting cap questions

deadlynightshade - 18-10-2015 at 03:54

The other day while dealing with the nasty peroxide caps I have to use because azides are to poisonous I'm to lazy to make fulminates and haven't got round to DDNP yet a thought struck me I have all the regents to make both ETN and PETN readily available its just going to cost me some money so mabey I could try out a little idea i have been concocting the idea is to have an ultrasafe blasting cap you know the one we all dream of. Now how I was going to try this is by pressing about 0.9 grams of PETN into an aluminum tube 0.5 grams of ETN on top of that and then 0.2 grams of magnesium powder about 300mesh on top of that initiated by a small charge of bp. Now here are my questions 1 can ETN be detonated by heat alone 2 if so will it achieve a full detonation and lastly do you think this is worth trying or would my time be better spent? All ideas welcome anything to avoid HMTD.

Bert - 18-10-2015 at 05:12


Quote:

lastly do you think this is worth trying or would my time be better spent?


Your time would be better spent reading the NPED thread. Which I will now merge your question into-

http://www.sciencemadness.org/madscifaq.html#2.1_Board_topic...

Don't start a new thread in EM without either listing/linking your references or giving a good description of experiments you have personally performed

Quote:

It is okay to be ignorant when first arriving and posting. However, you must be willing to make an effort to learn. If you are unable to cite references in support of an idea or as background to your question, the post belongs in Beginnings.


Quote:

If an existing thread covers the topic you're about to post about, post in that thread instead of a new one. It makes it easier for members to keep up with topics of interest. You may need to search before posting if you're unsure whether or not a thread already exists. The search engine is not very powerful and may miss relevant threads, but please make at least a cursory effort.


Quote: Originally posted by Laboratory of Liptakov  
This is the reliable detonator type NPED. But there is a fundamental problem. It has a large delay. A structure is complicated.



[Edited on 3-10-2014 by Laboratory of Liptakov]




image.jpg - 235kB

Bert - 18-10-2015 at 08:28

Quote: Originally posted by Laboratory of Liptakov  
Of course. Here is easy scheme for construction NPED detonator, only with quality aluminium powder, use as for "silver" color. Conditions is no-oxide surface. And 5% NC2 (12,4N) Liptakov.



Could you specify Aluminum powders by mesh size/microns and particle shape... Flake? Granular? Spheroidal?

How is Aluminum oxide coating removed from your powder? Or do you perhaps specify a particle coated with stearine or similar during milling?

And what is that intriguing thing (initiation device?) coming in from the right side of drawing! Shock tube/Nonel? Fuse? Electrical lead for a high voltage discharge to outer case?



image.jpg - 71kB

[Edited on 18-10-2015 by Bert]

deadlynightshade - 18-10-2015 at 19:42

I intended to use Mg not Al but here's how I make both. I get aluminium foil for my al powder and stick a piece of paper on either side and gently heat till chared with blow torch then cut into fine pieces and mill for a few days till either 300 or 400 mesh achived the carbon coats the powder and makes it way more reactive I can light this stuff with a bic and it burns quite slowly as for mg I just order that of eBay because its cheaper and less effort than me buying block and drilling shavings to be milled. If any one has better ways I'm open to ideas.

specialactivitieSK - 25-10-2015 at 01:20

What about using miniatures CuO thermite torch with nozzle as the primary initiator.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Wn-MCCZ3O1M



[Edited on 25-10-2015 by specialactivitieSK]

Al in Berta

Laboratory of Liptakov - 29-10-2015 at 10:54


Sorry to be a long time I was not here. For all the people: System Berta is not the nickname Bert, it's a coincidence. Furthermore, Bert questions: type of aluminum is not an essential condition for the entire facility. However, renders, used to be very good quality aluminum p.a. Pure not oxidized. Shaped like a small flat leaves, fine dust.
Among many other tests shows that the basic condition is: The grain Size of 2x2mm and Hard grain. Defined density, or several different densities. According to the diagram. It is absolutely crucial thing. A mixture of DD transfer might look like this: ETN 70, Mg 10, NC2 (NC3) 10, NH4ClO4 10%. Another important question to Bert: No nonel. Only coaxial cable. At the end of 10 mm thin steel wire. Of scourers.
Another mixture of DDT may look like this: ETN 70%, aluminum (any powder) 10%, NC2 10%, Pb304 10%. Basis is: 70% EM, ± 10% NC arises hard grain. And cca 20% for senzibilisers. Needless to look at it in a special mystery. Like super nano aluminum and the like. EM, binder, catalyseur for fast start burning. It is all. Nothing science, nothing madness. Only a few 1000 tests. :cool:
Last update and news on Liptakov channel youtube, of course.
Standard power suply 6V /1A, for instant detonation.

[Edited on 29-10-2015 by Laboratory of Liptakov]

Laboratory of Liptakov - 30-10-2015 at 00:06

For system NPED / ETN there can be many other transition mixtures. TACP is primary, but no very sensitive. As LA or FHg, or HMTD. Very effective catalyst for ETN transfer is mix with TACP. Such as DDT mixture: ETN 80 (70%), NC2 10%, TACP 10 (20%). This group includes a detonator only 10% diffuse no very sensitive explosives. And it is quite safe for filling. As you can see, aluminum there is not. Or another example: 70% ETN, NC2 10%, NHN 10%. NHN is very stable, Abel test OK, no dissolved in water. This combination will soon be investigated. But production Nickel Hydrazine Nitrate are poisonous. TACP not. For amatheur produce is thus better use TACP. Of course, questions stand his long time stability. How I see, I am only one person, what really tried this system. And I having positive results. You can somebody also. And no only talking about this.... :cool:
Dr. Liptakov

kecskesajt - 30-10-2015 at 00:50

Liptakov:What does the 2 or 3 means in nitrocellulose lacquer?NC2 or NC3

DDT

Laboratory of Liptakov - 30-10-2015 at 06:31

Its simple. NC2 is nitrocellulose with volume N about 12,4-12,6%. NC3 cca 13-14%. Or original shotgun powder, (with nitroglycerine). Its best for easy prepare mix NC2+NC3 1:1. Volume NC for transfer mix 8-15%. Next: Transfer mix (%) ETN 70, NC2 10, NHN 20 confirmed. 100% detonation. NHN is relatively inert, stabille, Abel test OK. Output segment pure ETN 0,22g/100Kg, tranfer mix 0,24g/35Kg, around ignitor t. mix 0,2g/10 Kg. Inside diameter classic, 6mm. Similarly as on scheme here upstairs. Other conditions same. Coming soon on YT.
Dr. Liptakov

kecskesajt - 30-10-2015 at 08:58

Thanks!
Why are you using so much copper compound?Not enviromental friendly and relatively hard to prepare.(There is a lot of explosive left over in the water)

Laboratory of Liptakov - 30-10-2015 at 12:16

Many explosives is not friendly to the environment. But it's better than compounds of lead, mercury, nickel, and more. And here is a detailed procedure for hybrid detonator ETN - NHN. Also poisonous. But it works...:cool:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bKrH350yIgI

kecskesajt - 30-10-2015 at 22:18

Subsrcibed for your channel a few months ago! Great videos, you could have much work in it.

Gargamel - 31-10-2015 at 03:32

LL, I see you went down from 8mm to 6mm for system Berta.

For ETN this works fine, no doubt. I used it with success in 5/7mm Brass pipe, but the brass is hard to cut for series production.

But how about NHN and TACP, will they work in such small diameter too?



Quote:

very good quality aluminum p.a. Pure not oxidized. Shaped like a small flat leaves, fine dust.


An oxymoron.

As a pyro guy I'd say dark stuff is superior. But this is oxidized of course - only about 85% Al, the rest is oxide.

NHN

Laboratory of Liptakov - 31-10-2015 at 07:46

Well, in today video is both systems. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s1m9zIed46Q
Pure NHN do it problems. But TACP have transfer without problems. CHP is more sensitive, but many attempts was making with TACP, without CHP. And works it always. In dia. 6mm, of course. Liptakov.

Bert - 31-10-2015 at 09:48

Aluminum is second only to charcoal in the huge variety of effects available from different process/particle size of a material-

Here, a brief explanation:

http://www.jpyro.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/08/Kos-220-228....

Gargamel - 31-10-2015 at 12:20

@LL:

Could you say something about your copper pipe?

Is it rather soft? Because there are hard on soft copper alloys.

I wonder if the softer ones are good enough because cutting is easier of course.


And that sleeve - do you find it's necessary? I pressed a lot of caps with less strong aluminium tubes and got my stuff to 1,6g/cm³ without bulges. Copper is even stronger...


Cu

Laboratory of Liptakov - 31-10-2015 at 14:35

Well. Any copper tube is good. Soft or hard, or steel or brass. Even the paper. The paper was tested on the inner diameter of 8 mm, 12 mm surface. Thus, the wall of 2mm. Full detonations to target steel plate 3mm hole 8-9 mm. But no always. Sometime failed. Therefore, it is much better to use a metal, Fe, Cu. Heavy metal puts a good dynamic resistance in process of detonation. It is important. Aluminum not. Paper not. Plastic material not. It says a several years of experience.
Liptakov.......:cool:

Bert - 31-10-2015 at 18:11

Flake Aluminum is what LL seems to describe, but the very bright silver colored paint grade Aluminum is usually coated with stearin in my experience- Which may be easily washed off with a few rinsings with suitable fast drying anhydrous solvents to increase speed of reaction. But it will be surface oxidized!

Is no such thing as "Aluminum powder without oxide coating", unless milled or blown in an inert atmosphere or under hard vacuum, and after always always handled similarly.



LL- There are many incongruous or unlikely units of SI measurements in answer to my recent questions, is it possible you sometimes meant to write um or nm and post has been auto corrected to mm?!

Perhaps spelling out fully all terms and chemical names once when first mentioned, with associated abreviation to be used after would make it easier to understand some of the descriptions as well. Or it may just be I'm too tired to get these from context.

Laboratory of Liptakov - 31-10-2015 at 23:33

I'm not sure I understand, but: For a variety of patents, it is clear that: The most effective is aluminum, which is used as a pigment for aluminum paint color. Most effective for ammonium nitrate composition. I do not know if it is on the surface (my aluminum) stearin or not. For the construction of ETN-NPED is good to use aluminum flake-color. No use German dark, dark India and spherical. It is my experience. But: ETN-NPED works well with other ingredients than aluminum. Basical of all is big grain for transfer mix. And his density, of course. Liptakov.

Gargamel - 1-11-2015 at 04:01

I think it's clear that we want the fastest possible deflagration in this case.

And that means dark Al is the way to go, oxide layer or not.
Any flashpowder kid knows that the "bright" paint grade stuff sucks for that matter.

That's my opinion.


On the other hand, maybe the aluminium acts primarily as a catalyst and only secondary as a fuel?
In the past there was some discussion that ETN detonated because it had contact to aluminium foil.

In this case the non oxidized paint grade stuff would of course be superiour.



@LL:
Did you wash the stearine cover from your paint grade Al?

And how about your pressing sleeve - this thing you put your cap in while pressing.
Do you really need that when using a strong pipe like the thick copper?

 Pages:  1